[00:00:02]
OKAY. I WILL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 22ND, 2025 TO ORDER. THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY.
[1. Opening Statement]
FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION.WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE MÉTIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, METIS AND INUIT WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.
NEXT, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MR. VAN DINE, ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE AGENDA?
[2. Approval of the agenda]
NOTHING ELSE TO ADD, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON ANY MATTER? NO. NEXT WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM MACA REGARDING COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT FUNDING.
[4. A presentation from MACA regarding Community Government Funding]
MR. VAN DINE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM.THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF MUNICIPAL AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS WITH US HERE TODAY TO WALK US THROUGH A PRESENTATION THAT THEY'VE BEEN GIVING ACROSS THE NWT AND ON SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT THEY HAVE MADE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.
THEY'VE INVESTED A FAIR AMOUNT OF EFFORT IN, IN TRYING TO REBALANCE, AND TODAY WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT HOW THEY DID THAT, AND SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'LL CALL UPON MISS LAU-A TO COME AND MAKE HER PRESENTATION.
THANKS. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOUR COUNCIL, AND TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON WHAT MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY AFFAIRS HAS DONE WITH OUR COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT FUNDING POLICIES, AND OUR PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED FUNDING ALLOCATION MODELS.
MY NAME IS GRACE LAU-A. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY OPERATIONS DIVISION BASED HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE, AND WITH ME TODAY IS KAVITHA BALAJI, MANAGER OF COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES.
IN OCTOBER 2023, MACA UPDATED THREE MINISTERIAL POLICIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING POLICY, THE WATER AND WASTE FUNDING POLICY, AND THE COMMUNITY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING POLICY.
THESE THREE POLICIES GUIDE HOW THE DEPARTMENT ALLOCATES ITS COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT FUNDING BUDGET.
THE UPDATES HAVE BEEN IN PROGRESS FOR MANY YEARS.
THESE CHANGES MODERNIZE HOW MACA DISTRIBUTES ITS BUDGET BETWEEN COMMUNITIES TO IMPROVE EQUITY AND TRANSPARENCY, AND THE UPDATES ADD CLARITY TO HOW THE DEPARTMENT'S TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE FOR COMMUNITY FUNDING.
WE HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION WHICH I WILL WALK THROUGH WITH SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
THEY HAVE OUR BASIC PRINCIPLES, WHICH ARE FAIR AND EQUITABLE FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS THAT MAXIMIZE THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS AND FUNDING ALLOCATIONS THAT ARE PUBLIC. WE ALSO HAVE SOME PRINCIPLES WHICH TALK ABOUT FAIR AND TRANSPARENT CONTRACTING FOR COMMUNITY PROJECTS, AND HOW OUR FUNDING PROGRAMS SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WILL BE HARD TO CONTROL COST INCREASES FOR COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS.
FOR SOME CONTEXT, MACA HAS $130 MILLION IN OUR ANNUAL BUDGET, WHICH WE FUND TO 32 COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS, 53 OF THAT THROUGH CAPITAL, WHICH IS OUR COMMUNITY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING, PLUS THE CANADA COMMUNITY BUILDING FUND, WHICH IS $18 MILLION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 54 MILLION THROUGH OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING, AND ANOTHER 22 MILLION IN WATER AND WASTE FUNDING FOR MOST N.W.T.
COMMUNITIES. THIS FUNDING IS THE MAIN SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, AND FOR MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE. FOR SOME JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISON, THE PROVINCIAL TERRITORIAL OFFICIALS COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DOES PERIODIC SURVEYS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT COSTS.
THE NWT ALSO PROVIDES THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF OUR GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT TO MUNICIPALITIES.
WHY WE NEED A CHANGE AND WHY WE HAVE CHANGED SOME HISTORY ON OUR FUNDING.
AS I SAID, COMMUNITY FUNDING REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF MACA'S TOTAL BUDGET.
[00:05:06]
FORMULA FUNDING AND STREAMLINED REPORTING. THE COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT FUNDING POLICY WAS INTRODUCED IN 2001.FOLLOWING THAT THE THREE MINISTERIAL POLICIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY WERE INTRODUCED.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IN 2003, WHICH IS LARGELY UNRESTRICTED.
2007 WAS OUR CAPITAL FUNDING, WHICH WE CALLED COMMUNITY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING.
COMBINED WITH THAT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S INTRODUCED ANNUAL CAPITAL FUNDING UNDER THE GAS TAX FUND, NOW KNOWN AS THE COMMUNITY CANADA COMMUNITY BUILDING FUND.
BY 2014, THE COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT POLICY HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER TEN YEARS, AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THEY WERE RESPONSIVE TO THE ACTIVITIES OF COMMUNITIES, KEEPING UP WITH CURRENT INFORMATION, AND WHETHER THEY ARE MEETING THE STRATEGIC GOALS THAT THEY WERE INITIALLY SET.
IN 2014, MACA LAUNCHED A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ITS FUNDING POLICIES.
THE 2014 WORKING GROUP REVIEWED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FUNDING OPTIONS AND DISCUSSED ISSUES LIKE HOW COMPLICATED THE FORMULA WERE AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REGIONAL CENTERS AND SMALLER COMMUNITIES.
ULTIMATELY, THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDED A COMMUNITY ALLOCATION MODEL, OR CAM, THAT WAS BASED ON COMMUNITY SPECIFIC ASSET LISTINGS AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THOSE ASSETS.
THE FULL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2014 REVIEW WERE PROVIDED TO EVERY GOVERNMENT IN 2015, AND AT THE 2015 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITIES.
THE NWT FOLLOWED UP WITH A RESOLUTION IN 2015 AND REAFFIRMED EVERY YEAR FOR MACA TO ACCEPT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND UPDATE OUR FUNDING POLICIES. IN 2023. WE COMPLETED AND REFINED THE DATA THAT WAS GATHERED IN THE 2014 AND FINALIZED THE POLICY CHANGES. TO SUPPORT THIS PROCESS, WE WORKED WITH A SMALLER ADVISORY GROUP OF COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES NOMINATED BY THE NWT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS TO REVIEW AND ADVISE ON THE FINAL POLICIES.
AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ADDRESS SHOW THE INEQUITIES IN FUNDING PRIOR TO OUR CHANGES IN THIS YEAR. ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS SLIDE SHOW THAT THE DISPARITIES, ARE NOT JUST BETWEEN SMALL COMMUNITIES AND LARGE COMMUNITIES.
THERE ARE LARGE VARIATIONS BETWEEN COMMUNITIES OF SIMILAR SIZE.
ROW ONE SHOWS TWO COMMUNITIES WITH LESS THAN 500 POPULATION.
THESE DIFFERENCES EXIST ACROSS ALL POPULATION GROUPS.
84% IN CAPITAL. 77% IN O&M, AND 56% IN WATER AND WASTE.
WITH ANY DISTRIBUTION MODEL, ANY CHANGE TO ONE COMMUNITY WILL AFFECT ALL.
COMMUNITIES THAT WERE BEING FUNDED OVER 100% OF THEIR MODEL CALCULATION STAYED AT THEIR PREVIOUS YEAR'S FUNDING LEVEL, AND ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO COMMUNITIES THAT HAD FUNDING LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE CAM.
VERY BRIEFLY, I WILL GO THROUGH HOW OUR FUNDING CALCULATIONS WORK.
[00:10:01]
WE ARE STARTING WITH OUR CAPITAL ALLOCATION. ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE FUNDING IS TO HAVE MODELS THAT ARE TRANSPARENT AND EASILY EXPLAINED.SINCE EVERY COMMUNITY MIGHT MAKE UNIQUE DECISIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THEY OFFER.
THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THEY WANT TO PROVIDE THEIR RESIDENTS.
THE MODELS ARE NOT MEANT TO PRECISELY CALCULATE EACH COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT'S ANNUAL COSTS.
THEY ARE TO REPRESENT A COMPARATIVE BASIS FOR FUNDING DISTRIBUTION, STARTING WITH CAPITAL, WHICH SIMPLY COMPILES A STANDARD LISTING OF COMMON COMMUNITY, GOVERNMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSETS AND DIVIDES THAT BY THE USEFUL LIFE FOR AN ANNUAL ALLOCATION. THIS SAME ASSET LISTING IS THEN LINKED TO O&M, WHERE WE ESTIMATE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE O&M COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, SUCH AS AN OPERATOR'S SALARY OR A BUILDING'S UTILITIES.
THE O&M MODEL ALSO RECOGNIZES PROGRAMS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY ASSOCIATED WITH INFRASTRUCTURE, SUCH AS PUBLIC SAFETY OR AND RECREATION, PROGRAMING AND ADMINISTRATION.
THE MODEL STILL ASSIGNS A STANDARD COST FOR COMMON ACTIVITIES SUCH AS WATER TREATMENT AND DELIVERY.
THE MAIN UPDATE TO THIS MODEL IS THE INCLUSION OF SOLID WASTE COSTS WITHIN IT.
FROM THIS, WE ARE STARTING OUR IMPLEMENTATION THIS APRIL 2025.
WE HAVE CALCULATED THE COMMUNITY ALLOCATION MODEL FOR ALL 33 FOR ALL 32 COMMUNITIES.
AS I SAID, OUR BUDGET CURRENTLY AVERAGES ABOUT 77% OR 76% OF THE TOTAL COSTS.
OVER THE LAST YEAR, MACA HAS BEEN MEETING WITH COMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS TO PROVIDE SIMILAR A SIMILAR PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTING THEIR SPECIFIC CHANGES, AND WE'VE MADE CHANGES TO OUR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK.
CHANGES TO FUNDING ALLOCATIONS HAVE STARTED THIS APRIL AND WILL CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS TO ALLOW FOR A SMOOTH TRANSITION AND RECOGNIZING THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES HAVE LESS CAPACITY TO ADJUST TO CHANGES IN FUNDING.
THE ONE EXCEPTION TO THIS ARE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE FUNDED OVER 100%.
THESE COMMUNITIES WILL REDUCE OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS UNTIL THEY MAXIMIZE AT 100.
TO REDUCE LONG STANDING DISPARITIES. CHANGES TO COMMUNITY, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATER AND WASTE FUNDING ARE BEGINNING THIS APRIL. THIS WILL BEGIN INJECTING MUCH NEEDED CAPITAL DOLLARS AND FUNDING TO SUPPORT CORE SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. 100% OF THEIR COMMUNITY ALLOCATION MODEL IS 28 MILLION.
YOUR 2024 FUNDING LEVEL WAS 19 MILLION, WHICH COVERED APPROXIMATELY 68% STARTING APRIL.
STARTING THIS APRIL, YOU WILL SEE AN INCREASE IN YOUR CAPITAL FUNDING AND WATER AND WASTE FUNDING UNTIL ULTIMATELY IN 2027, ALL COMMUNITIES WILL BE AT 84% OF CAPITAL AND 56 OR 55% OF WATER AND WASTE AND AS I SAID, O&M WILL BE UNCHANGED FOR THE NEXT STEPS.
MACA CONTINUES TO TAKE FEEDBACK ON THE FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION, INCLUDING THE INCLUDING THE POLICY DECISIONS, OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE POLICY.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE IMPACTS OF THE FUNDING CHANGES TO COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS PARTICULARLY IN THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS AND IMPACTS ON OPERATIONAL SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS IN 2025.
WE ARE ALSO MAKING OTHER CHANGES WHICH WE HAVE RECEIVED FEEDBACK ON.
WE WILL BE MAKING A FURTHER ADJUSTMENT TO THE CPI POLICY TO HELP ADDRESS RECRUITING CHALLENGES RELATED TO STAFF HOUSING NEEDS, AND WE WILL BE UNDERTAKING A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF WATER AND SEWER RATES WITHIN COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS TO ENSURE THAT CORE SERVICE REMAINS AFFORDABLE TO RESIDENTS. FUNDING SUSTAINABLE MUNICIPAL SERVICES IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY ACROSS ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL, TERRITORIAL AND MUNICIPAL. EACH COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT MUST MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT SERVICES TO PROVIDE AND HOW TO FUND ANY COSTS BEYOND WHAT IS
[00:15:05]
COVERED BY MACA'S CORE SERVICES FUNDING. THESE UPDATES WE'VE MADE TO OUR FUNDING POLICIES REPRESENTS A MOVE TO DISTRIBUTE MACA'S AVAILABLE FUNDING FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY BASED ON COMMON SERVICES, PROVIDED WE REMAIN COMMITTED TO ADVOCATING FOR INCREASED FUNDING TO ENSURE COMMUNITIES HAVE THE NECESSARY RESOURCES. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING AVAILABLE THROUGH MACA'S BUDGET IS NOT CHANGED.THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES? COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION AND THE OVERALL POLICY CHANGES.
I SEE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BASICALLY REACHING TO ABOUT 76% OF THE FUNDING WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MEET, AS PER THE FUNDING FORMULA, DUE TO THESE CHANGES OVER TIME, OF COURSE, AND I'M INCREDIBLY IMPRESSED BY THAT.
OF COURSE, BEING THE FACT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE THROUGH OUR TERRITORIAL REPRESENTATIVES SUCH AS EMILY HAWKINS, WHO IS IN THE CHAMBER CURRENTLY TO CONTINUE TO PRESSURE TO INCREASE YOUR BUDGET HERE.
NOW, I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. THE ADVISORY GROUP OF ELEGANT AND NWTAC THAT OVERSAW THE POLICY CHANGES HERE. HAVE THEY BEEN DISBANDED? THEY I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN DISBANDED.
MOST OF THOSE OFFICIALS PROBABLY ARE NO LONGER WITHIN THEIR CURRENT ROLE, AND THAT THE ROLE THAT THEY WERE IN, SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT FIND A USE, OR SHOULD COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS WANT A FURTHER ADVISORY GROUP? WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO REFORM THAT GROUP. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I WOULD CERTAINLY ADVOCATE FOR REFORMATION OF THAT GROUP OVER THE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD.
I DO APPRECIATE THE DEPARTMENT'S OVERSIGHT OF THIS, BUT SUCH THINGS AS THE NWTAC AND THE LGAT ORGANIZATIONS, AND I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE OUR REPRESENTATIVES ALSO AT THE TABLE FOR OVERALL REVIEW OF THESE POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'LL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. SORRY. SURE, MACA WILL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I SEE COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN, ALL OF YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR, AND THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. YEAH, DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE HIGHEST PER CAPITA FUNDING IN THE COUNTRY.
THANK YOU, AND THE INCREASES ARE WILL BE VERY USEFUL FOR THE CITY.
MY QUESTION IS JUST ARE THERE PLANS IN THE FUTURE TO INCREASE THAT PERCENTAGE FOR O&M? ABOVE WHERE IT'S SORT OF STAYING STATIC, JUST THAT MONEY IS INCREDIBLY HELPFUL BEING MORE FLEXIBLE THAN THE OTHER FUNDS.
MS. LAU-A. THANKS, COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN, AND YES, WE DO HAVE PLANS TO LOOK AT O&M IMPLEMENTATION FOLLOWING THE THREE YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD OF CPI AND WATER AND WASTE.
THE DECISION TO NOT MAKE CHANGES TO O&M WERE RELATED SOLELY FOR SOME STABILITY TO SOME OF OUR COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS TO ALLOW THEM SOME PREDICTABILITY IN THEIR FUNDING OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS.
FOLLOWING THE THREE YEAR TRANSITION, WE'LL LOOK AT HOW O&M MOVES.
RIGHT ON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. JUST A COUPLE FOR MYSELF, AND THEN COUNCILLOR FEQUET WHO'S NOT ABLE TO BE HERE. HAD A FEW AS WELL, SO I'LL SHARE THEM ON HIS BEHALF.
JUST FOR MYSELF, ON SLIDE SIX, YOU HAVE THE JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISON.
SO JUST THINKING ABOUT THAT ONE IS THAT I'M ASSUMING THE THREE TERRITORIES ARE THE THREE HIGHEST AND THEN IS INCLUDED IN THE NWT NUMBER. DOES THAT INCLUDE REVENUE COLLECTED THROUGH THE GENERAL TAXATION AREA? YOU KNOW, LIKE YELLOWKNIFE HAS OUR PROPERTY TAX. SO DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PROPERTY TAX COLLECTED IN THE GENERAL TAXATION AREA AS WELL? YES.
IT WOULD INCLUDE THE FOR THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES THAT DON'T COLLECT THEIR PROPERTY TAXES THEMSELVES.
SO THOSE AMOUNTS ARE INCLUDED? YES. YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT.
FOR SURE. SO A QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN THAT HE HAD WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT CONSIDERING THAT MOST COMMUNITIES DON'T HAVE SIGNIFICANT SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES, WHAT IS THE LOGIC BEHIND NOT TRYING TO GET TO THAT 100% OF CAPITAL FUNDING? AND SORT OF CREEPING UP AS OPPOSED TO SORT OF JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT COMMUNITIES, SOME COMMUNITIES CAN'T AFFORD THAT AT ALL.
YES. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE GNWT IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS,
[00:20:06]
AND WE'RE NOT THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES.THIS IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY ACROSS FEDERAL, TERRITORIAL, MUNICIPAL WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT SMALLER COMMUNITIES HAVE LESS OF A ABILITY TO GENERATE THEIR OWN SERVICES, AND THAT'S BUILT INTO THE MODEL.
HAVING SAID THAT WE'RE ALSO WE ALSO FACE OUR OWN FISCAL CONSTRAINTS.
NO GOVERNMENT HAS 100% OF FUNDING. SO WE ARE WE ARE HAVING TO MAKE THE SAME DECISIONS THAT COUNCILS MAKE IN TERMS OF OUR OWN PRIORITIES. THANKS FOR THAT. JUST ONE MORE QUESTION.
IN THE PRESENTATION, SO ON SLIDE FOUR, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO EQUITABILITY, AND ON SLIDE 12 OR.
YEAH, IN SLIDE 12 IT REFERS TO EQUAL. SO COUNCILLOR FEQUET WAS INTERESTED IN SORT OF ARE WE LOOKING FOR EQUITY OR EQUALITY, AND WHAT'S THE GOAL OF THE DEPARTMENT GOING FORWARD? SO THANKS. I THINK THAT EQUITY IS BUILT INTO THE MODEL.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE UNIQUE FACTORS THAT GO INTO EACH COMMUNITY'S CALCULATION, WHETHER THAT BE SIZE, LOCATION, REMOTENESS AND EVEN THE ABILITY FOR COMMUNITIES TO GENERATE THEIR OWN REVENUE.
THAT IS WHERE THE EQUITY IS BUILT IN. WHEN WE SPEAK OF EQUALITY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF FUNDING OF THAT PARTICULAR CALCULATION. SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GOAL OF MOVING ALL COMMUNITIES TO THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF THEIR CALCULATION.
PERFECT. THANKS SO MUCH FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? NO. SEEING NONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENTING, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO ENGAGE ON THIS. SO FEEL FREE TO PICK UP THE PHONE ANYTIME. THANKS SO MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND THANKS TO YOUR ADMINISTRATION, THEY'VE BEEN A LOT OF HELP.
A LOT OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PUT INTO OUR MODELS HAVE BEEN CLOSELY DISCUSSED WITH THEIR.
[5. A memorandum and presentation regarding whether to amend Zoning By‐law No. 5045, as amended, to permit the creation of 5 multi‐unit lots on lands legally described as Lots 1, 2 Block 119, Plan 634 and Lot 1‐1, Block 119, Plan 1192 and Part of Lane (Road Plan 85), (20 Gitzel Street and adjacent lots)]
WHETHER TO AMEND ZONING BYLAW NUMBER 5045, AS AMENDED, TO PERMIT THE CREATION OF A FIVE MULTI-UNIT LOTS ON LANDS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS ONE TWO BLOCK 119, PLAN 634 AND LOT ONE ONE, BLOCK 119, PLAN 1192 AND PART OF THE LANE ROAD PLAN 85 20 GETZEL STREET AND ADJACENT LOTS. THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL. MR. VAN DINE, OVER TO YOU.THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST A COUPLE OF WORDS OF INTRODUCTION, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. LAMB FOR FOR THE PRESENTATION. DIRECTOR WHITE IS EXERCISING HER CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY AND PARTICIPATING IN A JURY SELECTION PROCESS.
SO SHE IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO THIS ITEM GOING BACK PREDATING THIS THIS PARTICULAR MEMORANDUM THIS WAS A SET OF PARCELS THAT WE DID ACQUIRE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
SO I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOMETIMES WE DO GET SUCCESS IN AND THE TRANSFERS OF LAND FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, AND I WANT TO GIVE THEM FULL CREDIT FOR THAT WHICH HAS ENABLED US TO ACTUALLY BRING THIS MEMORANDUM FORWARD TO YOU TODAY.
RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION IS CERTAINLY A RELATIVELY NEW POLICY OF COUNCIL.
IT ALIGNS WITH ITS HOUSING PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.
IT ALSO ALIGNS WITH COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS INTEREST IN REVITALIZING THE DOWNTOWN, AND SO, BROADLY SPEAKING, THIS IS A REAL, TANGIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO WALK US THROUGH WHAT INTENSIFICATION KIND OF LOOKS LIKE AT A VERY GRANULAR LEVEL, WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE BASED ON THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WORK THAT THEY'VE UNDERTAKEN AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT TODAY'S DISCUSSION WILL GENERATE SOME THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO HOW YELLOWKNIFE CAN MAXIMIZE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY AND ACHIEVE SOME OF OUR OTHER OBJECTIVES WITH RENEWAL OF THE DOWNTOWN.
SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. ELAM FOR THE PRESENTATION AND TO FACILITATE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
THANK YOU. TAKE IT AWAY. THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE.
AS PART OF THE CITY'S INTENSIFICATION FOR A STRATEGY TO HELP THE HOUSING SHORTAGE.
CITY ADMINISTRATION IS WORKING ON A PLAN TO DEVELOP UNDERUSED SURPLUS LANDS.
THE CITY CURRENTLY OWNS AND CAN BE DEVELOPED.
[00:25:10]
AND MORE SIMILAR PROJECTS AS MR. VAN DINE MENTIONED ARE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW SOON.I THINK I'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A CONTEXT, BACK IN 2021, AS MR. VAN DINE MENTIONED, THE CITY ASKED ADMINISTRATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPING A FEW INFILL SITES.
THAT CITY OWNS, AND THE GOAL IS TO HELP SPEED UP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
WE CHOSE THIS SITE BASED ON HOW EASY AND FAST WE CAN DEVELOP THAT.
FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THE SITES WE MIGHT NEED.
A COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE OR AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS IN THIS CASE WE ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD GOING FOR A ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT, AND IF IT IS APPROVED, THEN WE'LL HAVE THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORY.
THE LAND SHOWN IN RED IN THE SCREEN IS THE SUBJECT LAND IS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW, AND THIS LAND WAS NOT ORIGINALLY OWNED BY THE CITY, AS MR. VAN DINE MENTIONED, AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE TRANSFER FROM THE [INAUDIBLE] TERRITORY.
WE HAVE PRIORITIZED THIS LAND NOW BECAUSE IT IS READY FOR DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT NEED ANY COSTLY SERVICING, EXTENSION OR INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE. IT ONLY NEEDS A ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT, AS I MENTIONED, AND ONCE THESE ARE COMPLETE, YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD FOR MAKING THIS LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
TO ENABLE THESE, A ZONING BYLAW MUST BE AMENDED FROM PARKS AND RECREATION ZONE TO RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION ZONE, WHICH IS R-1, RI-1 IN THIS CASE. THE REMAINING LAND TO THE SOUTH WILL EXCEED, I THINK, 1100, SORRY, 11,000M², AND IT WILL BE KEPT. PARKS AND RECREATION AS IT IS.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT'S ALMOST 60% OF THE LAND WILL BE REMAINING OPEN SPACE.
EACH OF THE FIVE PROPOSED LOTS HAS MAXIMUM SIZE OF MINIMUM SIZE OF 20 METERS BY 36 METERS WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE REMAINING LAND WILL BE AT THE SOUTH SIDE.
THE R-1, RI-1 ZONE PERMITTING MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING NOW.
HOWEVER, BASED ON THE LOT SIZE WE CAN ANTICIPATE THAT A MAXIMUM SIX UNIT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED IN ONE LOT, BUT AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT IN RI-1 ZONE YOU CAN HAVE DUPLEX TRIPLEX FOURPLEX SIX PLEX OR MULTI-UNIT. SO OUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT TOTAL NUMBER OF UNIT WILL BE BETWEEN TEN UNITS TO 30 UNITS.
SO WE ARE NOT RESTRICTING THE NUMBER OF UNITS MORE THAN 30.
SO AS YOU AS YOU ALREADY KNOW, THAT WE ARE WE ARE STARTING COMMUNICATING ABOUT THE BENEFIT OF INTENSIFICATION AND THE STRATEGY THAT WE ARE TAKING. ADMINISTRATION IS CONSIDERING THIS PROPOSAL AS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS INTENSIFICATION STRATEGY AND OUR COMMITTEE PLAN ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE THESE KIND OF DEVELOPMENTS AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE HIGH DENSITY DOWNTOWN CORE AND THE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING TO IT.
THERE ARE LOTS OF BENEFITS. WE CAN DISCUSS ABOUT.
ONE OF THEM IS OBVIOUSLY WE WILL HAVE MORE HOUSING OPTIONS.
THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT WILL ALLOW TO HAVE ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, THREE BEDROOMS, NOT ONLY FOR THE FAMILIES, BUT IT CAN BE ALSO SENIOR HOUSES AND ALSO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE INFILL DEVELOPMENTS WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR EFFICIENT USE OF LANDS.
SO, I MEAN, THERE IS ACTUALLY NO NEED TO USE CAR TO GO ANYWHERE FROM THIS SITE.
[00:30:01]
THERE ARE A FEW OTHER BENEFITS, LIKE REVITALIZATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU OFTEN DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT A NEW DEVELOPMENT ALSO BOOSTS THE HOUSING VALUE OR THE LOT VALUE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS? IT WILL ALSO HELP TO CREATE NEW JOBS AS WE DO MORE AND MORE OF THESE KIND OF DEVELOPMENTS, AND ALSO OBVIOUSLY LOWERING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT AS WE ARE TRYING TO HAVE COMPACT DEVELOPMENTS AND REDUCING THE URBAN SPRAWL. INTENSIFICATION FIRST STRATEGY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A PACKAGE WHICH IS BASICALLY UNDER FUNDED BY CMHC THROUGH OUR HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND.ADDING THOSE GRANTS CAN ADD UP A QUITE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF I MEAN, FINANCIAL BENEFIT, WHICH CAN I MEAN, THE DEVELOPERS CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO STREAMLINING THE PROCESS, AND CMHC RECENTLY INTRODUCED DESIGN CATALOG FOR OFFERING PRACTICAL, ADAPTABLE, ADAPTABLE USE, PARTICULARLY TAILORED FOR NORTHERN CLIMATE DESIGN AND BUILDING MATERIALS.
FUTURE HOMEOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS CAN LEVERAGE THIS PRE-APPROVED DESIGN TO REDUCE UPFRONT CONSULTING COSTS, STREAMLINING THE APPROVAL PROCESS. AS WE ALREADY REVIEWED THESE DESIGNS THE APPROVAL PROCESS WOULD BE MUCH QUICKER.
ONE THING I'D ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE WILL BE NO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THESE DESIGNS ARE TAILORED FOR THE STANDARD LOTS LAWS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE, 20 METER BY 30 METER OR 36 METER.
THE DESIGN'S ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED, SO THERE WILL BE NO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIRED.
THEY CAN I MEAN, DEVELOPER OR FUTURE OWNERS CAN DIRECTLY GO FOR BUILDING PERMIT.
WE CIRCULATED THIS PROPOSAL TO OUR COLLEAGUES.
TECHNICAL COMMENTS HAS BEEN RECEIVED. NO MAJOR CONCERNS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.
WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALL THOSE COMMENTS, IF WE BRIEFLY MENTIONED SOME OF THOSE, INCLUDES THE COMPATIBILITY AND CHARACTER. AS YOU SAW IN THE EARLY SLIDES THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WILL HAPPEN WOULD BE SIMILAR IN HEIGHT AND CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING.
SO WE ARE CONCERNED WE ARE WE ARE WE ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ISSUE AND WE IDENTIFIED THIS THROUGH THIS THIS PROPOSAL TYPE OF HOUSING, CONDO, APARTMENTS. OBVIOUSLY, THIS WILL BE A FIVE UNIT TO MINIMUM TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.
IT CAN BE A CONDO, CONDO BUILDING OR AN APARTMENT, A RENTAL HOUSE OR A PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, APPROACH TO LAND DISPOSAL. THIS IS NOT DECIDED YET.
SO IT CAN BE VARIOUS WAYS. WE ARE MORE LEANING TO A BALLOT DRAW, BUT IT CAN BE SOME OTHER OPTION.
WE HAVE SOME OTHER OPTIONS AS WELL. OWNERSHIP OF THE LANEWAY AND ACCESS AS INDICATED IN THE REPORT THE OWNERSHIP RIGHT NOW IS WITH GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORY. WE APPLIED FOR A TRANSFER OF THAT OWNERSHIP, WHICH IS UNDER PROCESS.
SO THAT PARTICULAR LANEWAY IS NOT IS NOT CONSIDERING FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME UNTIL WE HAVE THE TRANSFER. WE RECEIVED A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING THROUGH OUR REVIEW PROCESS PUBLIC WORKS IDENTIFIED. NO CONCERNS. THERE IS NO UPGRADE WARRANTED AT THIS TIME.
[00:35:02]
LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC COUNTS AND IF IT IS WARRANTED, WE'LL HAVE THE UPGRADE ACCORDINGLY, BUT AT THIS TIME, BASED ON OUR CURRENT COUNTS THERE IS NO TRAFFIC.OR INFRASTRUCTURE IS REQUIRED. CONCERNS REGARDING POTENTIAL BLASTING.
SO THESE LAWS PROPOSED ALONG GOODSELL ROAD AND MATTARNOVI STREET AND MOST MAJORITY OF THE LAND IS ACTUALLY FLAT. THERE WILL BE ONLY SOME AREAS AT THE SOUTH SIDE, WHICH MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT WHICH MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE STEEP GRADING, BUT I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT DEPENDS ON THE DEVELOPER WHETHER THEY WILL BLAST IT OR NOT. I MEAN, WE CAN DEVELOP HOUSES ON SLOPE. IT CAN BE STEPPED.
MAJORITY OF THE GRADING IS AT THE SOUTH SIDE, WHICH WILL REMAIN OPEN SPACE.
SO OUR NEXT STEP WOULD BE IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES.
SO THAT'S ALL FOR THIS PRESENTATION, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? COUNCILLOR WARBURTON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, I HAVE A COUPLE.
SO WE GOT A PRESENTATION ON... THERE WE GO. NOW IT'S WORKING.
EXCITED TO SEE LAND COMING POTENTIALLY TO MARKET BY END OF THIS YEAR.
IS THE KIND OF ETA FOR THIS STUFF. WE HAD A PRESENTATION ON INFILL OVER TWO YEARS AGO.
SO TO SAY WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR A LONG TIME IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT.
SO EXCITED TO SEE SOMETHING MOVING. YEAH. QUESTIONS MORE AROUND.
YOU MENTIONED TRAFFIC. SO IS THE CITY DOING A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THIS, OR IS IT JUST BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS RIGHT NOW, WE'RE SAYING WE CAN PROCEED WITH THAT ONE, AND THEN IF WARRANTED LATER, WE'LL NEED ONE.
SO THERE'S BEEN SOME TRAFFIC STUDIES DONE IN THAT CONTEXT.
SO WE'RE DRAWING UPON EXISTING STUDIES IN MANY INSTANCES.
SO THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES IS NOT SEEN AT THIS JUNCTURE BASED ON THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT THIS TIME, BUT I'LL INVITE MR. GREENCORN TO ADD ANYTHING MORE TO FILL OUT THAT QUERY.
I WOULD SAY AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCESS ON UPON A DESKTOP REVIEW OF WHAT WE SEE IN RIGHT OF WAY WIDTHS, THE ADJACENT DIRECT ADJACENT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IT SEEMS FULLY CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE TRAFFIC SIMILAR TO ANY OTHER MAJOR STREET IN YELLOWKNIFE. BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT FURTHER DOWN THIS PROCESS THAT YOU SEE ON THIS ON THE SCREEN, THAT IT COULD BE SUBJECT TO DEPENDING ON THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND HOW THAT ROLLS OUT.
OKAY, THANKS I GUESS. THAT BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION.
SO WE'RE NOT DOING A TRAFFIC STUDY. WE'RE WE'RE CONFIDENT IT'S OKAY, BUT IF SOMEONE SUBMITS AND WE JUST FINISHED HEARING THERE MIGHT BE SOME OPTIONS TO STREAMLINE WITHOUT A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. SO WE MAY ASK WHOEVER BUILDS STUFF TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY.
IN THE END, IF WE WANTED. IS THAT A POSSIBLE STEP IN THAT PERMITTING PROCESS? MR. VAN DINE. I'LL ALLOW MR. GREENCORN TO CLARIFY IN ESSENCE, THERE AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CONVEY TO COUNCIL AND TO THE PUBLIC IS THAT BASED ON THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A NEED FOR SUCH A STUDY AT THIS JUNCTURE, SHOULD CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.
MR. GREENCORN WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD? NO, I WOULD SAY THAT'S IT.
NO POINT IN GETTING WAY AHEAD OF OURSELVES UNTIL THE PROCESS FLOWS.
[00:40:02]
I WOULD LIKE, WE KNOW THERE'S UP TO 30 UNITS CAN GO THERE, LIKE, WE KNOW THE DENSITY.I WOULD JUST BE CAUTIOUS OF ASKING SOMEONE IN THE FUTURE TO SPEND A TON OF MONEY TO THEN MITIGATE A RISK, WHICH WE COULD HAVE DONE AHEAD OF TIME. SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION. WHERE ARE WE NOW? JUST GOING BACK TO THE STREAMLINED PRE-DESIGN SLIDE YOU HAD THERE.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THOSE ARE PRE-APPROVED DESIGNS.
SO NORMALLY WHEN YOU SUBMIT A BUILDING PERMIT OR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, YOU GOT TO DO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS AND FOUNDATION DRAWINGS, ALL THOSE THINGS. SO ARE WE SAYING THAT WE GET THE CITIES WITH THESE PRE-DESIGNED FOR CMHC.
MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. ELAM IN A MOMENT, BUT I THINK THIS IS AN EXCITING POTENTIAL INNOVATION FOR FOR HOUSING AND TRYING TO ACCELERATE IT IN WITHIN CITY LIMITS, AND IT'S GETTING QUITE A BIT OF ATTENTION NATIONALLY AND CERTAINLY THE VARIOUS I THINK THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT AND I THINK FUTURE OR, AND CURRENT PLATFORMS OF VARIOUS PARTIES ARE POINTING TO HOW TO DO SUCH THINGS.
SO WE'RE EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT IT TODAY, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. ELAM TO ELABORATE. THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE, TO YOUR QUESTION.
SO WE ARE WORKING WITH CMHC FOR FOR SOME TIME ON THIS.
ALL THE DRAWINGS WILL BE UNDER THE PACKAGE. SO IF THE IF THE DEVELOPER OR THE FUTURE PROPERTY OWNER CHOOSE TO TAKE THIS DESIGN, THEY WILL JUST I MEAN, THEY WILL JUST SUBMIT THESE DRAWINGS TO US, BUT ONE THING IS THEY HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THIS HOUSE OR DESIGN FITS WITHIN THE LOT.
SO THESE LOTS ARE PARTICULARLY DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT IT FITS THOSE DESIGNS.
SO IF THEY WANT TO F OR EXAMPLE FOR FOURPLEX OR SIX-PLEX THAT WE ARE SHOWING HERE THESE DESIGNS CAN DIRECTLY SUBMIT IT TO BUILDING PERMIT. THANKS. GETTING A LITTLE WEEDY HERE BUT THE SO IF SO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE THEM TO GO GET A NORTHERN ENGINEER, A NORTHERN MECHANICAL ENGINEER, ALL THESE TO STAMP ALL THESE DRAWINGS EVERY SINGLE TIME.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO ACCEPT THESE DRAWINGS AS APPROVED BY.
MR. ELAM. MR. CHAIR, SO ONE THING THEY HAVE TO REVIEW FOR US IS THAT WHETHER THIS FOOTPRINT CAN BE PLACED ON THE LOT AND WHETHER THERE IS ANY VARIANCE REQUIRED OR ANY CHANGES THEY WANT TO DO IF THERE IS NO VARIANCE REQUIRED, AND IF THIS BUILDING EXACTLY CAN BE PLACED ON THAT LOT, THEN THEY DON'T NEED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIFFERENCES BASED ON THE LOCATION.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE SLOPES THEN IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
THE DESIGN NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT MODIFIED IN THOSE CASES.
THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE FUTURE OWNER WILL GO TO A CONSULTANT, MAKE THOSE MINOR CHANGES AND WILL SUBMIT, BUT THE OVERALL DESIGN IS ALREADY THERE, SO IT WILL BE LESS TIME AND LESS COST TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.
OKAY, THANKS. YEAH. I REALLY HOPE THIS ROLLS OUT LIKE THIS.
SO, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DO LIKE THIS IS REALLY ACCESSIBLE TO A LOT OF LOCAL DEVELOPERS.
SO I KNOW THIS LOT WILL GO TO IT'LL GO TO THE PROCESS USUALLY IT GOES TO A LIKE A BALLOT DRAW, AND IF IT DOESN'T THEN IT GOES TO PUBLIC MARKET. ARE WE GOING TO PUT ANYTHING IN OUR SUBDIVISION OR ANYTHING IN OUR PROCESS TO KIND OF PREVENT OR HAVE WE THOUGHT ABOUT LOT AMALGAMATION IF SOMEONE WANTS TO GO MANAGE TO GET ALL FIVE? SO, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULDN'T BUILD THREE OF THESE, THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUILD SOMETHING BIGGER. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WHAT'S OUR THOUGHT PROCESS AROUND THAT? MR. VAN DINE. THANKS.
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, MR. CHAIR. OVER TO YOU, MR. ELAM. THROUGH MR. CHAIR. SO THE INTENT OF THIS LOT IS TO KEEP THEM 20 METER BY 36 METER, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LAWS, WHICH WILL MAKE THE BUILDING FORM IF NOT SIMILAR, IT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.
OBVIOUSLY THERE IS AN ACCESS ROAD WHICH IS NOT ALLOWING THEM TO CONSOLIDATE ALL TOGETHER.
SO THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN, AND AGAIN, I MEAN, IF THE BALLOT DRAW IS THE WAY, THEN IT IS LESS LIKELY THAT WE WILL HAVE MORE THAN ONE OR MORE LOTS, AND IF SOMEBODY HAS TWO LAWS, THEN AGAIN, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUBDIVISION.
[00:45:01]
AGAIN, ALL THIS PROCESS, BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE FEASIBLE.THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. FIRST, JUST LIKE TO ECHO COUNCILLOR WARBURTON AND THE EXCITEMENT AROUND THE STREAMLINED PROCESS, AND AS MUCH CERTAINTY AS WE CAN GIVE PEOPLE WHEN THESE LOTS COME FOR SALE, THAT THIS IS THE PROCESS, THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL BE APPROVED FOR AND WHAT YOU MAY NOT, OR WHAT YOU MAY NEED TO CHANGE.
JUST SO NO ONE BUYS ONE OF THESE LOTS. COUNTING ON APPROVAL OF ONE OF THESE HOUSING CATALOG DESIGNS, BUT YEAH, EXTREMELY EXCITED THAT THIS IS BEING CONSIDERED, AND SO MY QUESTION JUST TO CONFIRM MY UNDERSTANDING SO I COMPARED R I-1 VERSUS RC-1 , THE ZONING SURROUNDING THESE LOTS, AND I SEE NO DIFFERENCE. BASICALLY ALL OF THE BUILDING FORMS DUPLEX MULTI-UNIT TOWNHOME.
JUST LOOKING TO CONFIRM THAT IS THAT IS ALL THE CASE, AND THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RC-1 AND RI-1 IS THE LACK OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE PERMITTED USES. MR. VAN DINE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR, FOR THE QUESTION. SO COUNCIL WILL RECALL THAT WHEN WE BROUGHT IN THE RI ZONING, IT WAS WITH THE BROADER INTENT TO INCENT THESE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES, AND I BELIEVE DIRECTOR WHITE WAS CLEAR IN DESCRIBING THAT IN COMPARING IT TO THE EXISTING ZONING AND ZONING IN THE AREA THE INTENT OF THIS MOVEMENT IN THIS ZONING ADJUSTMENT WAS TO TRY TO INCREASE THE LEVEL OF DENSITY AND INTENSIFICATION SO THAT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED WOULD NOT BE THE GO TO OR THE DEFAULT IN THESE AREAS, BUT I'LL ALLOW MR. ELAM TO LABORATE FURTHER. THROUGH MR. CHAIR, I THINK COUNCILLOR MENTIONED RIGHTLY THAT YES, THE SINGLE DETACHED IS NOT PERMITTED IN RI-1 ZONE.
WITH THE SAME BUILDING FOOTPRINT, WITH THE SAME BUILDING LOT SIZE, BUT EVENTUALLY, WHETHER IT IS DUPLEX FOUR PLEX OR SIX PLEX, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT CANNOT BE MORE THAN WHAT IT CAN THROUGH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
BUILDING HEIGHT AS WELL AS I MENTIONED, IS THE SAME AS THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. SO THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE IT THREE-STOREY, WHICH IS PERMITTED, BUT AGAIN, THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THREE STOREY.
SO IT IS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN. AWESOME.
YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, AND JUST EXCITED ABOUT THIS AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME OF THE LOCAL OWNERS AND LOCAL PEOPLE TO DEVELOP A SLIGHTLY MORE DENSE HOUSING IN THIS AREA. VERY EXCITING.
LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS COMING FORWARD. THANKS SO MUCH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. LESS OF A QUESTION, MORE OF A COMMENT.
AT THIS TIME. I DO WANT TO THANK ALL OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THIS.
I WILL SUPPORT THIS GOING THROUGH IN THE PROCESS.
I THINK THE NEXT STEPS ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO PARTICIPATE, BUT I DO WANT TO ECHO THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR EYES WIDE OPEN, ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE TRAFFIC ASPECT, AS WHAT WAS SO EARLIER REFERENCED BY COUNCILLOR WARBURTON WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ON NIVEN.
PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPEAL WAS UTILIZING THAT EXACT THING TO BE ABLE TO HOLD THAT UP, AND I WANT ALL OF OUR DUCKS IN A ROW BEFORE WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BUT I, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED INTENSIFICATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, AND ESPECIALLY BY SEEING SOME OF WHAT IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD HERE. I DO SEE THIS WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I DO SEE THIS AS AN ADD TOWARDS IT AS WELL.
[00:50:05]
WHILE ALSO KEEPING IT WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AND VERY UNDERSTANDABLE.THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. THANKS, COUNCILLOR COCHRANE.
DO HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS AND LIKE, COUNCILLOR COCHRANE APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM THE RESIDENTS WHO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL TIGHTEN UP THE PROCESS AS WE GO FORWARD AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOTTING OUR I'S AND CROSSING OUR T'S.
SO A COUPLE OF MY QUESTIONS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW WE HEAR FROM RESIDENTS REGULARLY AND THAT ADMIN HEARS REGULARLY TOO, IS AROUND VACANT LOTS IN OUR DOWNTOWN CORE. SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO A BIT OF WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO AROUND THOSE PROPERTIES IN OUR DOWNTOWN CORE AND WHY WE'RE, YOU KNOW, PUSHING PROPERTIES LIKE THIS? AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE HAVE SOME VACANT AND VERY UNDERUSED LOTS IN OUR DOWNTOWN CORE AS WELL.
MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, MISTER CHAIR.
IN ORDER TO INCENT LAND OWNERS TO ACTUALLY USE AND DEVELOP THE PROPERTIES.
THERE'S A VARIETY OF MEANS THAT ARE USED SUCH AS, A CLASSIFICATION OF A VACANT LAND HAVING A TAX LEVY THAT IS PERHAPS A BIT HIGHER THAN THAN IT WOULD BE IN ORDER TO CREATE AN INCENTIVE MODEL IN SOME MUNICIPALITIES.
THEY DO THAT ALSO FOR DIFFERENT USES. SO YOU'LL SEE LOTS OF NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSITIONING FROM LOW LIKE FOR EXAMPLE PARKING LOTS INTO, INTO CONDOMINIUMS AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL PIECES.
THAT QUESTION WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL. I UNDERSTAND I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE, BUT THERE WAS A CONVERSATION WITH COUNCIL AROUND THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND THAT TALKED IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE HOUSING INTENSIFICATION SUITE.
WE AT THAT PRESENTATION COUNCIL WILL KNOW NOW, AND MR. ELAM HAS DESCRIBED IT BRIEFLY IN HIS PRESENTATION, A NUMBER OF INCENTIVES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO.
THIS IS THE CARROT MODEL OF TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE, AND WE ARE SEEING SOME LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AND INTEREST BY BY RESIDENTS LOOKING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OF THOSE CARROTS. WHAT THE QUESTION BRINGS FORWARD TODAY IS, IS WHAT WHAT ARE THE STICKS? AND SO AT THE TIME THAT PACKAGE WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TO COUNCIL, I AM UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS A RELUCTANCE TO BRING IN CARROTS AND STICKS AT THE SAME TIME. SO THE CONVERSATION AT THAT TIME COUNCIL WAS GRABBING ONTO THE CARROTS, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.
IF THERE'S APPETITE, TO USE THAT METAPHOR A LITTLE FURTHER TO NOT CHEW ON STICKS, BUT TO TALK ABOUT STICKS WE CAN CERTAINLY DO SOME THINKING AND BRING BACK AND DO THAT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
TALK ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT FIT INTO OUR TAX CODE FOR THE CITY AND WHETHER COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT POSSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE VERY QUESTION THAT ISSUES THAT YOU'VE RAISED IN YOUR QUESTION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. WELL, THAT DOES GIVE US A BUNCH TO THINK ABOUT AND I DON'T WANT TO MUDDY THE WATER WITH THIS ISSUE AND THESE LOTS IN PARTICULAR, BUT I THINK IT DOES BRING BACK FOR COUNCIL WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO CONSIDER THOSE ITEMS GOING FORWARD.
JUST FOLLOWING UP ON A QUESTION THAT COUNCILLOR WARBURTON HAD AROUND THE DISPOSAL PROCESS, I KNOW THAT IT'S YET TO BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME, BUT COULD ADMIN PROVIDE ANY LIGHT ON WHEN AT WHAT STEP IN THE PROCESS THAT WILL BE DETERMINED SO THAT RESIDENTS HAVE A GAUGE ON THAT? MR. VAN DINE. SO I BELIEVE MR. ELAM WALKED THROUGH THE SEQUENCE, AND THAT SEQUENCE, I BELIEVE, IS PROBABLY A NUMBER OF MONTHS OUT FOR US TO, TO PROCEED AFTER THIS THE BALLOT AND OUR LAND ADMINISTRATION BYLAW DOES REQUIRE US TO UNDERTAKE AN OPTION THAT ALLOWS FOR FAIRNESS, I GUESS, IN TERMS OF IN TERMS OF LOT AVAILABILITY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
SO WE'LL BE PURSUING THAT AS A COURSE OF ACTION.
THANKS FOR THAT, AND I SEE, COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP AND I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO GO SHORTLY, SO I'LL PASS IT BACK TO YOURSELF QUICKLY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH.
I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE DISCUSSION AROUND STICKS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT.
[00:55:11]
NOT STICKS IN GENERAL, AND WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO A DISCUSSION AROUND STICKS IN GENERAL, OR DIFFERENT STICKS AS IT APPLIES TO [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THAT, COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN.I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT IN TERMS OF SUMMARIZING THAT. JUST ANOTHER QUESTION WAS HAS OUTSIDE OF TRAFFIC GENERALLY, WHICH I KNOW HAS BEEN A CONCERN FOR SOME RESIDENTS AND SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, LESS OF A CONCERN FOR MYSELF.
I THINK THAT AREA CAN HANDLE THAT, AND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL, AND AS MR. ELAM HAD SAID, THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO HAVE MORE RESIDENTIAL NEAR OUR DOWNTOWN CORE.
SO I THINK THAT'S ONE THING WE ALSO NEED TO KEEP IN MIND, BUT BEYOND THE TRAFFIC POINT DID OUR PUBLIC SAFETY TEAM REVIEW AND PROPOSE THIS AMENDMENT AND IF THEY HAD ANY CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSAL? MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WE DID HAVE IT REVIEWED BY BY OUR COLLEAGUES IN PUBLIC SAFETY, AND NO MAJOR ISSUES WERE RAISED AT THAT TIME, AND AS COUNCIL WOULD BE AWARE, THOSE ISSUES WOULD BE SURFACED THROUGH THE SAME DESKTOP KIND OF REVIEW THAT MR. GREENCORN HAD REFERENCED AND NO ISSUES, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAVE BEEN SURFACED.
THANK YOU. RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC PIECE, THOUGH, THERE WAS REFERENCE IN THE PLANNING REPORT, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE PLANNING REPORT REGARDING THE SUMMER TRAFFIC COUNT THAT WILL NOW INCLUDE THIS AREA.
SO JUST ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC METRICS OR ANYTHING THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT AS PART OF THAT COUNT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY TIP OFF IF A BIG LIKE A MORE FORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW STUDY WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY BEFORE MOVING FORWARD, OR THAT WOULD THEN REQUIRED AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, MR. CHAIR. I'LL INVITE MR. GREENCORN TO RESPONSE TO RESPOND.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HYPOTHETICALS, I THINK, IN THAT, IN THAT QUESTION, BUT I KNOW MR. GREENCORN IS VERY GOOD AT THOSE, SO I'LL HAVE HIM RESPOND.
THANKS. SO PARAMETERS AROUND TRAFFIC STUDIES AS YOU KNOW THE WORDING IN THE BYLAW IS IS NOT A MUST HAVE. IT'S A DISCRETIONARY TOOL.
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE EVERYBODY THAT DOES A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DO A TRAFFIC STUDY.
SO WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY IS THAT THE UNITS CAN VARY ANYWHERE BETWEEN 10 AND 30.
SO THERE'S A PRETTY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 10 AND 30.
SO WE'LL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS SUMMER.
IT'S TIME THAT WE DID SOME TRAFFIC COUNTS AT THAT INTERSECTION, SPECIFICALLY FRANKLIN AND MATONABBEE, JUST TO SEE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT INTERSECTION IS FUNCTIONING AT.
NOW, WE BELIEVE IT'S OKAY. THERE'S BEEN NO MAJOR ISSUES, BUT BUT WHAT WHAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY TRIGGER A VERY SPECIFIC TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THIS AREA WOULD AGAIN, KIND OF FOLD OUT THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT I'M HEARING WHAT COUNCIL IS SAYING, AND THE DEPARTMENT WILL PUT SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHT AND RESOURCES INTO.
INTO THIS PARTICULAR AREA. THANKS FOR THAT, AND I KNOW A HYPOTHETICAL IS TERRIBLE WHEN YOU'RE HAVING TO ANSWER IT, BUT I APPRECIATE THE, YOU KNOW, TAKING INTO THE FACT THAT, AGAIN, BACK TO WHAT COUNCILLOR WARBURTON SAID, AS MUCH CLARITY GOING INTO THIS PROCESS AS POSSIBLE. SO PEOPLE AND RESIDENTS OF THE AREA UNDERSTAND SORT OF WHAT THOSE DECISION POINTS ARE.
THE LAST ONE IS ABOUT BLASTING. SO WITH POTENTIAL FOR BLASTING, EVEN MINIMAL, IF THERE WAS ANY DAMAGE TO SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF AN EXISTING PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF THAT BLASTING.
MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LIABILITY IN A FUTURE SCENARIO, I'M ADVISED NOT TO COMMENT ON SUCH SUCH THINGS, BUT IN, BUT WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT IN THIS CASE, THE THERE'S A NUMBER OF STEPS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN, AND I'LL TRY AND LAY OUT THOSE STEPS.
SO AS WE GO THROUGH AND HAVE TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A DEVELOPER WILLING TO PUT ONE OF THESE STRUCTURES ON, AND THEY DETERMINE THAT BLASTING IS REQUIRED.
THERE IS A CONTRACTOR THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING LICENSED TO DO SUCH BLASTING.
THAT LICENSE IS REGULATED NOT BY THE CITY BUT BY OTHER, OTHER AUTHORITIES, AND THAT CONTRACTOR WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THOSE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. THE THE ACTUAL REGULATOR WOULD HAVE TO POLICE WHETHER OR NOT SUCH A THING HAS HAPPENED CORRECTLY.
[01:00:05]
IF IN THE UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE, THE CONTRACTOR ERRED AND DAMAGE WAS CAUSED.THEN THAT WOULD RESULT IN A FAIRLY ELABORATE KIND OF ASSIGNMENT OF, OF LIABILITY OF WHICH OF WHICH WE WOULD HOPE WOULD BE EXPEDITIOUS AND HOPEFULLY NOT RESULT IN ANY KIND OF INJURY TO EITHER PHYSICALLY OR ECONOMICALLY TO ANY OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS, BUT WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE ENCOURAGING ALL THE PARTIES TO, TO REACH RESOLUTION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
I HOPE THAT HELPS. I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE ADVICE NOT TO ANSWER TO SPECIFICALLY, BUT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF RESIDENTS, I APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING IT NONETHELESS. THAT'S ALL FROM ME.
SO AGAIN, ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY COLLEAGUES ONE LAST TIME? NO. THEN WITH THAT, WE COME TO THE END OF OUR MEETING.
SO THAT ITEM WILL COME BACK TO US IN A FEW WEEKS.
SO WITH THAT, COME TO THE END OF OUR MEETING,
CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? COUNCILLOR COCHRANE, AND WITH THAT, WE WILL END OUR MEETING. WE WILL SEE EVERYONE NEXT WEEK. THANKS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.